User talk:Readem/PvX:NoBias
Discussion This seems more like a policy to keep author/player bias out of the build. By bias, I'm refering to the limitations of the player (armor, campaigns, etc). I think this policy would be better named as PvX:NoBias, or something along those lines. "Best" in the sense of quality is 100% subjective and is asking for abuse. --8765 01:55, 31 May 2007 (CEST) I will agree with that. Or Build Example or something. It's a good write up, and gives the basic feeling of what we as regular contributors like to see. Shireen 01:58, 31 May 2007 (CEST) Sure, I'll rename it. Because in all honesty, I really could care less about the name :p. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 02:00, 31 May 2007 (CEST) Well done. Will be a good example to others. Now ask yourself this... Do I want to show them what to do? Or not to do? First? People are going to just pop it open and glance at the format, and the correct one should be on top IMOP. Shireen 08:38, 31 May 2007 (CEST) What were you saying? [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 08:54, 31 May 2007 (CEST) I agree that this policy is useful for the vast majority of builds, but there are reasons for exceptions: Assume someone just bought Nightfall as his first campaign. He's starting to play an Elementalist and has no idea how Warriors work, so he's looking for a build for Koss. Do we refuse to help him? Of course there shouldn't be tons of beginner's builds, and much of it can be done by variants. But in general we should keep in mind that not all readers are playing as advanced characters as the average author, and it's those who don't that need most help. A possible compromise would be to clearly mark inferior builds as such, so who doesn't want to doesn't have to see them. But as long as they're good in a certain situation (like for beginners), I don't think that all of them should be deleted. --Hhhippo 09:15, 31 May 2007 (CEST) Well, we could always create a "Core" builds section. Thus promoting new Players of GW. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 09:18, 31 May 2007 (CEST) Yeah, I don't see why we shouldn't allow people to create builds specifically for one campaign or specifically for beginners, as long as they don't become "accepted" builds in the traditional sense, but rather are in some other subsection of the builds section. However, I do like this. On the other hand, should this be stand alone, or should it be added to PvXwiki:Writing good builds as a section on eliminating bias? This would reduce clutter, it would make the information available without searching through even more pages, and, this is really more of a guideline anyway. Well, something to think about. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 18:50, 31 May 2007 (CEST) This is great. I love it. But, as mentioned above, we do collect single-campaign builds. Perhaps make a note that multi-campaign references are not to be placed in single-campaign builds? Though I could see "If you have Factions, substitute skill X for skill Y" under variants or some such... -- Armond Warblade 02:27, 1 June 2007 (CEST) :Raedman, What I mean was show them the correct way first, then show them what not to do. People who are too busy to actually read the paragraphs are just going to skim down to the first thing that looks like a build. Show them correctly up front, then demonstrate the incorrect way second. Just to mitigate user error. :: As for a few other comments listed above, PvXWiki:Premade Builds Policy, may not be exactly what you guys had in mind (I know, I know, Premades SUCK) but that policy does outline a way to adress the lesser skilled user base in the way of content. A section just for them. Now if we could just agree on what information should be put into there... (realized he just did a shamless self promotion and hides in a corner) Shireen 02:32, 1 June 2007 (CEST) I had an idea for a better name for this in mind, but I forgot. >.< -- Armond Warblade 02:54, 2 June 2007 (CEST) :Excellence is important, but remember this: "good" builds are declared via the skills they use, and the potential of the build. but, if a "better" build appears but is hard to use, would we consider it as "unbiased" on skill limitation? It is the truth the almost half the people who visit sites such as this are not as skilled as everyone else is. would this policy wager in the difficulty of the build? would it simply allow a build to be vetted because it is not limited via all restriction, but is almost impossible to use for beginners? The best solution is not to create policies that demand excellence, but to teach beginners what should be done, regardless of grade and caliber.By teaching them what to do, you save on manpower telling them what NOT to do. You can tag builds that violate this policy, but will the writer learn? 80% of the time, no. human nature prevents it so.Ignorance is what makes us human....what can you do? block them for violation?BaineTheBotter 09:32, 3 June 2007 (CEST) Organizing guides and policies You are aiming at two different points here: # Builds should be designed with a maximum level of optimization. # Articles describing a given build should be well written. The second point is nicely covered by PvXwiki:Avoiding common mistakes in build articles. I think with a little bit of polishing that page can work as an official guide along with PvXwiki:Style and formatting and PvXwiki:Writing good builds. Additional examples of bad writing style could be moved from this page over there. Anybody should be encouraged to improve articles, even of vetted builds, as long as the actual build is not changed. Articles which are too badly written will go to stubs and if they sit there too long without hope for improvements, they should be deleted. About point 1: This touches the general question of what's a good build, which again splits in two parts: * What criteria should everybody use when deciding about his rating for a build? This should be described in PvXwiki:Real Vetting. A build not reaching a high standard will then get a low rating and eventually drop out of the wiki for that. * When should a build be deleted without vetting? So far we have PvXwiki:Build Deletion and PvXwiki:Delete Unfavored Builds dealing with that. I think we should not have too many policies dealing basically with the same thing. There should be one policy which clearly summarizes under which circumstances and using which procedure (incl. e.g. call for improvements, grace period) a build should be discarded. Now back to your article: I would suggest to put the request for using the best skills and the best equipment into the rating criteria of Real Vetting. A build which uses inferior skills or equipment should get a lower rating, unless it is explicitly designed for low level PvE areas or people with limited campaign access. I think there is not always an objective way to tell which skills are the best (otherwise this wiki should hold exactly one build per profession and task), so using the vetting system to deal with this is IMHO the best solution. Omg, this is getting lengthy, better stop here :-) --Hhhippo 13:10, 2 June 2007 (CEST) You could just like use the Variants section to recommend other skills if missing a campaign... Right? Something along the lines of: "If you do not own Factions, replace with ." That way you guarantee the quality of the build, but you offer an alternative for players missing that skill. 62.165.96.134 03:48, 14 June 2007 (EDT) Make it official! Do it...! I expect the best from the best builds site there is! GET WORKING! lol ~~ [[User:Napalm Flame|'Napalm Flame']] ^_^ (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2007 (EDT)